| > the root cause of most bad patents is obviously the lack of time patent examiners get. It takes about 30 seconds to realize that the above patent has zero novelty. I'm not going to disagree with the patent office being underfunded, but the fact is that whoever granted this patent had a complete lack of critical reasoning skills, and no amount of time was going to help that. I see this all the time with the patent office. They'll approve any madlib-style patent without thinking about it at all. Any patent of the form "______ wirelessly" gets approved. "________ with a computer" is the other offender. Sure, maybe they reject it on the first pass, but it always makes it through the second pass. Want to know the truth about how patent approval works? Talk to a patent attorney who files them. Here's some true things about getting your patent accepted: 1. Novelty doesn't matter at all. 2. The lawyer doesn't need to understand anything about the technology to write up the patent. They do need a few of your buzzwords, but that's it. 3. Patents always get rejected the first time, and then if your lawyer is any good they always get accepted the first time. I've got a fistful of patents myself, and the acceptance of the patent application had no relationship with the inventiveness of the invention. |
But can you find good corroborating evidence in 30 seconds? I'm pretty sure the applicant's lawyers would have a field day with "Patent Officer X rejected this due to their own critical thinking", no?